On March 20, 2004 the
streets of New York City were flooded with brass bands, protesters handing
out socialist pamphlets, activists in turtle costumes and disturbingly realistic
George W. Bush masks. In addition to “The World Still Says No
To War,” signs, the protest included messages such as "Mozambique
out of Burundi," “Legalize Marijuana” and "Belize is
for Peace." Activists in attendance also grappled with questions regarding
what the best course of action in Iraq should be. It was easy to say
no to war before the warbegan, but now that it is “over” what
should the peace movement demand?

The message proposed
by International ANSWER and United for Peace and Justice, the main coordinators
of the March 20th peace rally in New York City, was to “Bring The Troops
Home Now.”

This demand, however,
raised serious concerns among more than a few activists. To many of the anti-war
protesters who were out in full force last year -- and who continue to show
their support today -- demanding the withdrawal of all troops immediately
seems too simplistic. They argue that a multilateral solution, where the United
Nations takes on a stronger peacekeeping role, is the best course of action
until an interim Iraqi government is established.

Though the majority of
activists that I spoke with at the rally supported the demand to pull all
troops out of Iraq immediately, there were many who thought otherwise. Kate,
from New Paltz, New York explained, “Coalition forces have completely
demolished any form of government and infrastructure in Iraq. We can’t
just pull out now after what we’ve done, it will just be a breeding
ground for terrorism.”

Tyler, from Monroe, New
York agreed, “Immediate evacuation of troops would not help the area
at all. We shouldn’t have been there in the first place but now
that we are there, we definitely need to give the Iraqi people their power.”

With frequent attacks
on coalition forces, U.S. troops are far from enjoying a warm welcome from
the Iraqi people. Many activists in the U.S. argue that greater United
Nations involvement could result in a smoother transfer of power to the Iraqi
people. Whereas the U.S. is a deeply mistrusted force, the UN represents
a more democratic coalition of nations. Yet as the organization that
implemented the devastating trade embargo against Iraq for so long, the UN
would hardly be a welcomed group either. With the transfer of power to an
interim Iraqi government planned to take place this June 30th and general
elections for a transitional assembly scheduled for January 2005, it is possible
that the situation in Iraq may improve. However, with bombings and shootings
continuing daily, it does not look likely.

Despite the concern of
many anti-war protestors about the simplistic message proposed by International
ANSWER and United for Peace and Justice, the March 20th rally still managed
to attract an estimated 100,000 people. Making my way through the lively crowd,
I was able to speak with various people about their reasons for demanding
the immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq.

One teacher from New
York told me that the Iraqi resistance would not give up until the U.S. leaves
and that so far, “multinational war profiteers are making the most of
the Iraqi freedom.”

Leslie Cagan, the national
coordinator for United for Peace and Justice, elaborated on this idea, “The
way you start a military occupation is to send troops in and the way you end
an occupation is to bring the troops out. It is virtually impossible to build
anything approaching a new democratic set of institutions when your nation
is being occupied by a foreign army.”

Cagan responded to criticisms
of the "Bring The Troops Home Now" demand by saying that it is important
to put out an extreme version of a demand so that you don’t end up settling
for less than what you had to. “If somebody isn’t saying
‘end this occupation and end it now,’ then the conversation moves
further and further to the middle.”

Emily, a journalist from
Long Island, justified her opinion that troops should immediately leave Iraq.
“The US is only working with the most cooperative Iraqi political groups,
and these groups don’t necessarily represent the needs of the people.
By supporting one group over another, the U.S. is creating more division among
Iraqis. We need to let the Iraqi people decide how their country is
run.”

But what do the Iraqi
people have to say? The BBC recently conducted a poll in which of the
2,652 Iraqis surveyed, 39% supported the presence of coalition forces in Iraq,
36% said they should stay in Iraq until an Iraqi government was in place,
and 15% said troops should leave immediately. 17% considered attacks on coalition
forces acceptable. This poll suggests that, once again, nothing is ever
as black and white as many would like it to be. (For more information
on this Iraqi opinion poll and others see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm
and http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=5200

So where does this leave
the peace movement? Can it responsibly demand the withdrawal of all troops
immediately, or should it push for a multilateral approach to transferring
power to the Iraqi people as quickly as possible?

It is hard not to be
suspicious of the U.S. government's efforts to push for an interim Iraqi government,
especially after they lied to us by saying that Saddam Hussein was harboring
weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat to U.S. security.
It is difficult to believe that any government that the U.S. sets up in Iraq
will, as Emily said, represent the needs of the Iraqi people. Yet who knows,
next year the activist slogan might be, “Peacekeeping Troops Back To
Iraq! You Made The Mess, Now Stay And Clean It Up!”